3 ms·

Section 230 protects them from being held liable for content published by users. I don't think it would apply to advertisements that they are publishing on the

Section 230 protects them from being held liable for content published by users. I don't think it would apply to advertisements that they are publishing on the site in exchange for money, but I'm not a lawyer.

fsckboy 3y ago
what you call "users" are actually the product. The "users" of google's services are the advertisers.
- richbell 3y ago
  Sure, but that's irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
  - adrianmonk 3y ago
    Usually "you are the product" is a snarky, low-effort comment, but this particular case seems like the rare situation where it actually is directly relevant. If you run a self-service advertising system, then don't advertisers count as users, and don't their ads count as third-party content that the system operator isn't liable for? They may not be your service's only users, and people may not like ads, and ads have a commercial purpose, and advertisers pay for them, but I don't think Section 230 cares about any of those things.
    - fsckboy 3y ago
      "you need to live in a tall building to be able to see who else lives in tall buildings" thank you for recognizing the connection I was making, you are a gentleperson and a scholar.
bastawhiz 3y ago
I suspect it doesn't matter whether they were being paid. Section 230, as best as I can read it, doesn't say anything about whether there's any exchange of value. And at least IMO, what would the expectation be? That Facebook investigates every single ad to make sure that nobody in them is impersonating someone else? How would you do that? To what extent does Facebook need to fact check all of the details of all of the ads across its whole platform? That's exactly the sort of hassle that 230 was intended to prevent the need for in the first place.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  > How would you do that? Either figure it out or don't do it?
  - bastawhiz 3y ago
    I mean how would anyone do it? Can you tell AI and humans apart with no error? How could you allow any advertising online if any person could be deep faked and you were liable? What if it was just the text "I'm Bill Murray and I use Goodyear tires." Are you going to ask Bill Murray? Are you going to take a signed affidavit? Are you going to ban ads with people and opinions in them? I hate advertising and I hate Facebook, but I think there's really nothing the platform can do to stop fake ads because—especially as deep fakes improve—there's nothing that any platform can do as an intermediary to practically prevent them. That doesn't mean the advertisers can't be held liable (and they should). It's just wild to me to think that the intermediary should also be liable simply because they accepted money.
- midasuni 3y ago
  > How would you do that? Same way that TV stations and magazines do.
  - bastawhiz 3y ago
    You're assuming they do.

fsckboy 3y ago

what you call "users" are actually the product. The "users" of google's services are the advertisers.

richbell 3y ago
Sure, but that's irrelevant to the matter being discussed.
- adrianmonk 3y ago
  Usually "you are the product" is a snarky, low-effort comment, but this particular case seems like the rare situation where it actually is directly relevant. If you run a self-service advertising system, then don't advertisers count as users, and don't their ads count as third-party content that the system operator isn't liable for? They may not be your service's only users, and people may not like ads, and ads have a commercial purpose, and advertisers pay for them, but I don't think Section 230 cares about any of those things.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    "you need to live in a tall building to be able to see who else lives in tall buildings" thank you for recognizing the connection I was making, you are a gentleperson and a scholar.

bastawhiz 3y ago

I suspect it doesn't matter whether they were being paid. Section 230, as best as I can read it, doesn't say anything about whether there's any exchange of value. And at least IMO, what would the expectation be? That Facebook investigates every single ad to make sure that nobody in them is impersonating someone else? How would you do that? To what extent does Facebook need to fact check all of the details of all of the ads across its whole platform? That's exactly the sort of hassle that 230 was intended to prevent the need for in the first place.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
> How would you do that? Either figure it out or don't do it?
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  I mean how would anyone do it? Can you tell AI and humans apart with no error? How could you allow any advertising online if any person could be deep faked and you were liable? What if it was just the text "I'm Bill Murray and I use Goodyear tires." Are you going to ask Bill Murray? Are you going to take a signed affidavit? Are you going to ban ads with people and opinions in them? I hate advertising and I hate Facebook, but I think there's really nothing the platform can do to stop fake ads because—especially as deep fakes improve—there's nothing that any platform can do as an intermediary to practically prevent them. That doesn't mean the advertisers can't be held liable (and they should). It's just wild to me to think that the intermediary should also be liable simply because they accepted money.
midasuni 3y ago
> How would you do that? Same way that TV stations and magazines do.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  You're assuming they do.